In misc.legal.moderated, Roy <
[email protected]> wrote:
In most cases, a security camera yards away from the actual crime
location would not be part of the "crime scene". The authorities would
have to obtain a warrant or a subpoena duces tecum.
Since the video only exists in electronic format, they would probably
get an electronic copy made by either the person with the video or by a police technician.
You could sue the premises owner and get a subpoena to force them to
give you a copy of the video.
This is an interesting distinction / rational that I as a non-lawyer
never really thought hard about. There's an interesting story on
Twitter that involves getting a copy of video evidence.
The story begins here:
https://twitter.com/dguido/status/1424921717051469833
Rough summary is: Guido has an electric scooter and lives in NYC.
Concerned about scooter theft he has put two Apple Airtag tracking
devices on the scooter. One he expects to be found by any moderately competetant thief, the other he expects to go unnoticed.
Eventually his scooter is stolen. He's able to track to a particular
building by the well concealled Airtag. He goes to the police and after
much cajoling manages to convince them to come with him.
The scooter is in an electric bike shop called "Fly E-Bike". The staff
in the store deny the possibility of having any stolen goods and are
only reluctantly convinced because of the Airtag (which can be made
to play sounds for auditory help in finding something).
Let's switch to direct quotes now:
As I further inspect the scooter, the cops start asking questions:
Do you sell used e-bikes? Do you collect info from the seller? Do
you ask they prove ownership? What is the contact info for the
person who dropped this scooter off? No, No, No, and we don't know.
It's at this point that I noticed there were cameras indoors. In
hushed tones, I excitedly told the cops, "Ask for video from last
Tuesday at noon." As I walked the scooter outside, I further
reiterated, "they'll delete it if you don't get video now."
An employee inside realizes we're investigating further. He
immediately becomes agitated: I should be happy I got my scooter
back and leave. It's my fault for getting it stolen. I'm screwing up
his day. This isn't how we do things in Brooklyn. More joined in.
I move outside while one cop retrieves the evidence, but the most
aggressive employee followed me. He says, "All you're doing is
making enemies." Gets closer to me, and pantomimes shooting me. He
implies I'd get murdered if he sees me again.
I do my best "How to Win Friends" and find things to agree with him
on. To their credit, the employees not harassing me outside
cooperated and provided the video. It's a woman, and they claim she
didn't leave a phone number.
So I get from Roy's response, the police had to get the staff to
co-operate or get a court order to force co-operation. And from the
sound of it, the police were not willing to really do much work, so
court order is probably unlikely to hope for, and the staff probably
could have resisted all requests and even deleted the video.
I'm correct in believing there's no legal obligation to keep the store
from deleting the tape after the cops left, assuming they left before
any court order arrived, right?
Just working that out from: "If I hold video evidence of a possible
crime, I don't need to preserve that evidence at my expense absent a
court order" which I believe to be correct.
In this case, receiving stolen goods, the shop has every right to
presume the person who brought the scooter in is innocent, correct?
Guido has told us his story, but nothing has been decided in a court.
(Others have pointed out, if it is this hard for a white guy to get the
police to get off their asses and investigate a crime, immagine how hard
it is for so many others.)
Elijah
------
wanting to make a vague scenario much more specific
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)